BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:19 AM

If you generate enough data (eg 60 pages worth), you are bound to come up with a fair amount that fits. maybe thats why there are so may believes in in depth astrology. If they look into it deeply enough they are bound to find bits that fit like a glove. Very easy to forget about or explain away all the bits that don't quite fit, or are completely contradictory to your nature. I am sure if you did the long report based on one of the fictional people, I would find something that equally sounded very like me. In science if we do experiments with hundreds of statistical tests, if we used the ordinary tests, many of them would come up positive without there being an actual true phenomenon, just a statistical blip. This is called comprimising your confidence levels (also known as a "fishing expedition" which is very bad science). In these cases you have to choose between changing your level of proof to be very high for each individual test, or limiting the questions you ask beforehand and making just a few testable predictions. In the silly pseudo experiment we did here, I really did the second. I limited the prediction to one - that my short report generated from the site would be more recognisable to me as me than 3 other reports. You did not raise any objections to that test before the experiment, only once it had failed to support what you expected. It is very human to move the goalposts after the fact, but not very good science.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM

Yes I am married, and no he is not a Taurus. But I'm sure if you analysed his chart, he would have something in Uranus that would make you say, ah that explains that... ;-)

PS I have no problem with people believing in astrology or whatever; they can believe the earth rides on the back of a huge turtle if they want. I just don't agree with anyone trying to convince me of anything in the absence of any evidence.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:55 AM

I'm not trying to convince you, Bagpuss. ANd I did know that the "experiment" was silly, anyway, being based only on the first 2 (very general sections_ of a computer report, your own personal opinions (which are obviously biased AGAINST astrology) and an inaccurate birthtime. But I went along with it anyway, because I just love astrology, and looking at new material. It's fun!

I asked about your partner because according to your chart, your "Descendant" (the 7th house cusp, directly opposite the Ascendant, said to indicate partnerships and marriage) is in Taurus. However, it's on the very cusp of Taurus (lemme look again ... yup, 1 Taurus 10').

So, if you were actually born before 9 am (say, at 8:45), that 15 minute difference moves your Ascendant to 29 Libra, and your Descendant to 29 Aries. Curious -- is he an Aries?

I'm asking because the Descendant is one of many places on my own chart that IS highly accurate. With Gemini Rising, my Descendant is in Sagittarius. WEll, I've been 'married' three times so far -- and and two out of three of those partners -- in fact, the fathers of my children -- are both Sagittarians. (And I knew nothing about astrology till years later, though, or I might have made different choices!)

I also have dear ole 'malefic' Saturn sitting plunk in the middle of my 7th house -- the house of partnerships. And I have suffered extreme limitations and sorrow through my relationships in this life. None of them lasted more than 5 years. I'm single now, and loving it, and I've finally learned to accept my troubles with "significant others" with philosophical resignation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

Nope he is not an aries either. Keep going, if you keep repredicting, you should get it in at least 10 more goes...

And it shouldn't matter whether I am biased against astrology (which I wouldn't be if there were any evidence for it....) because it was a blind test, and I didn't know which one was meant to be me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

Egads not another PS -- sorry people but here it is anyway --

Just thinking -- even if he's not an Aries, Saturn is sitting in your 8th house, at 20 degrees Gemini (nowhere near the cusp, so this placement is unaffected by a few minutes difference in birthtime).

The 8th house is the house of sex and passion as well as death (highly related life experiences, it seems :-) while Saturn signifies difficulties, hardships, limitations, sorrow, karma.

Would you agree that a same-sex relationship is more difficult, more of challenge in many ways than the more usual variety (which is challenging enough already for most people)?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

Sorry, I am confused, what have same sex relationships got to do with me?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

I wasn't predicting, I was asking because I was curious. There's a difference.

If you really think your obvious prejudices and biases against astrology had no effect on your judgement of those reports, well then how can you call yourself a "scientist", least of all one with a psychological bent?

Anyone well-versed in psychology knows better than to blind themselves to the effect of a powerful variable like long-held personal prejudices and biases!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:25 AM

And pardon me, Bagpuss, but I thought I was dealing with a male here. If you're a woman, please excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:31 AM

But I didn't know which one I wasn't supposed to choose (if I were subconsciously trying to spoil the experiment because of my supposed bias). And I honestly gave my true feelings about what each of them said.

And I am really not that biased against astrology. If some solid evidence came out that backed it up, I would believe in it tomorrow, regardless of whether I believe in the premises behind it. For example, I thinbk the premises behind acupuncture are all wrong, but I know that it works for certain conditions (mainly pain related). I just think it works for some other reasons which we are still discovering.

Actually I would have been quite impressed if I had read one of those charts and it sounded like me, more than the others. I know I was when I read the kabalarians short report into my name - even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

LOL - I am a lady, I wear ladies dresses... and stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

ANd if you ARE a woman, that messes up those reports entirely. I entered your sex as male, which makes a big difference not in the placement of planets but in analysis and interpretation.

Anyways, obviously you have no real interest in your chart or you'd read it all through. ANd you don't care to learn anything about astrology either -- why should you? You think you already know it all! You just want to continue throwing mud at it as much as possible here (just like the GUEST who started this "troll" of a thread, probably).

WEll, I'll have no part of that, thanks. I refuse to waste my time and energy on people who are totally ignorant and strongly biased against astrology. Especially when they fail to demonstrate even a smidgeon of honest interest in discovering what it's all about.

So, fare thee well, Bagpuss! It's been fun, and I've learned a bit more about astrology through working with you here. Thanks again, to you and to the Cat.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

... even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.

THere's your bias, again, Bagpuss. Attractive and appealing and very very convincing, isn't it? ;-)

As I said, you think you already know all there is to know about astrology -- and it's hooey. Well, hooey hooey am I to question such a scientific, logical, well-informed 'opinion' as this!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:54 AM

OK, not that I really care but I've known a couple people - with testicles and penises - who enjoy getting dolled up in miniskirts and pantyhose and padded bras and heels and makeup and stuff.

So, you really didn't answer the question of what sex you might be. ANd as I said, gender makes a big difference in the way a chart is analysed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

My post about being a lady with ladys dresses was a bit of an in joke, only for those who watch Little Britain. I was trying to keep things light hearted. (By the way I am female - sorry if that mucked up the chart, maybe you should have asked for all the required info before you started instead of making assumptions).

And no, I don't want particlularly want to learn about astrology, as I have been presented with no evidence that it has any truth to it. Otherwise I would spend my life learning about every alternative doodah under the sun, which I would find very boring.

I am sorry you have suddenly taken the huff. I was trying to keep things light hearted, but I know that doesnt always come across in print. Im not sure what I said that upset you. But if you enter a thread which is obviously wanting to debate whether astrology has any merit, I don't see why you would take offense that other people don't agree with it. And I don't know why you think it is a troll thread?

I have probably been one of the more open minded sceptics here - probably more open minded that you have been. You are already convinced in it, and I doubt that anything would change your mind. I have stated what it would take to start changing my mind. I think that makes me the open minded one and you the one who thinks they know it all already.

If you look back at my previous posts on the subjects you would notice that I was the one who brought up the research into relationship between personality and season of birth, and questioning the article that said there was no evidence no matter how vaguely worded was the premise.

Thanks for spoiling what i thought was a good natured disagreement of opinions.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

You don't think this was started as a troll thread? I beg to differ! (Duh!)

You're welcome, Bagpuss. PLease rest assured I'm not in a huff. If I was, believe me, you'd know it. I do have a quite the fiery and determined and willful Aries Sun, plus a bull-headed Taurus Moon. And I do make for quite the worthy adversary, when provoked. ANd I win hands down, too, 9 times out of 10.

Just ask my ex's. :-)

I did what I did as a kindness to you, on a very busy morning, simply because you requested it. I wasn't even trying to be a "scientist", and I'm certainly no astrologer.

I thought you were a guy. Pardon me. I could have asked I suppose, but it honestly didn't occur to me. I don't know too many women who'd choose a handle like "Bagpuss". Sounds like a combination of "ole bag" and "pussy", at least to me. But those are just my own preconceptions and biases, of course.

I did spend quite a bit of time and effort honouring your request to the best of my ability, on the off-chance that you were truly interested in learning about astrology -- and, more importantly, because you might have gain something beneficial from my efforts here.   Well, you're not interested, and you won't benefit, and you just confirmed all this once again, without a doubt. And that's perfectly ok too. Like I said, I've learned a learned a bit more about astrology myself, just by going over your chart. So it was more than worth it!

YOu have yourself an absolutely wonderful day now! I'm outta here -- it's Sunday, the suns shining, the snow's sparklin, the chickadees are cheepin and I'm going out for a long, long LOOOOONG walk on the Nature Trail with my son! YIPPPEEEEE!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

ummmm...Bagpuss made it clear in several posts that she was female...

but, to the point:
"... are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art ... of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report,"

If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing , would you have to try it 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?

Or in both of those cases, could you decide for yourself that the very conditions and acceptances necessary to participate were outside the boundaries that you recognized as safe, sane and reasonable?

Yes, I know that metaphorical examples can't quite pinpoint the exact issues involved, but they do show how difficult it is to convince someone of the value of something when they cannot accept the very basic first premises of the argument necessary to go a lot deeper into the experience.

Astrology requires suspending belief about certain rules of physics, logic and scientific method in order to grant credence and validity to a system based on hearsay, Gerrymandered statistics and ambiguous, emotionally loaded language.

I looked up my own chart on that page (based on precise time and location) and saw some things that 'seemed' to fit me, as well as some that didn't...and when I looked at daily 'readings', I read suggestions and generalized 'wisdom' that are, indeed, pretty good advice for almost anyone. I can easily see why many people get some 'help' and ideas for looking at their life from these writings.

It is a VERY common and understandable habit for people to look at an event, discussion, religion, political platform, etc., and extract from the complex format those things which feel relevant, applicable, and comfortable to themselves, and conveniently ignore or rationalize the stuff that they don't like or can't deal with.....
As you have seen, I (and some folks like Bagpuss) require more than elaborate charts and persuasive exponents with extensive 'history' to persuade us that the ***BASIC PREMISES*** are well founded. It is, like religion, a belief system.... stuff is claimed that cannot be verified or measured directly, and people like me, with built-in filters, can only shrug when we are told that "if we'd only study more detail and 'open ourselves' to the entire gamut of the knowledge base, we'd realize it's power to explain.....

Sorry...*smile*....but it all boils down to "you have to believe before you can know.", and some us just don't work that way...just as some are predisposed to be comfortable with it.

as one friend of mine said many years ago when she was looking up my chart, and I explained that I didn't put much stock in that stuff......"Oh...yes...that's JUST what your chart says you'd say!"

*grin*...can't argue with THAT much!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM

True enough Bill.
Slightly off topic - Bagpuss was the central character in a British children's TV show.
This Character was adored by many who were very young at the time including I suspect the bagpuss who is a guest here.
Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

And Bagpuss gave a big yawn and settled down to sleep...

Now if my chart had said that I was baggy and a bit loose at the seams - the I WOULD have been impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

Ah. That explains it. I could not imagine why anyone would freely choose the member name "Bagpuss".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Ah,well Emily loves you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM

OOPs, I have just realised that in my early posts, I mustn't have been logged in, so I came up as Guest. So Daylia wouldnt have known the earlier posts were me.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

I have noticed, Bill, that you seem to be irresistably attracted to threads about things you don't believe in or are sceptical about. You can always be relied upon to show up (as can Clinton Hammond, Pied Piper, Wolfgang, and a few others) Why is that? Does it satisfy some deep emotional need, do you think? ;-)

I am suggesting that sceptics are by nature very desirous of things to be sceptical about, and they look around for them like a dog searching hopefully for something really smelly to roll in...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:28 PM

Debate requires at least 2 perspectives Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM

Aw... he's late .... here I still be ... gee, Bill, I *wonder* (but not tooooo hard :-) why you didn't choose to phrase your questions this way instead?   
   

"If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean sparkling clean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing appetizing , would you continue to ignore 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked disliked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood goodwill in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats whatever you pleased to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?"

Could it be, just possibly, that your words are slanted, biased and prejudiced against the subject of this thread???!!!????   oh noooo      not a scientific logical soul like Bill    notta chance    :-)


I'd like to add that I learned much more about astrology from Ivor's posts, the info Peace provided, and from Einstein and Jung (via the interesting ideas, observations and quotes I discovered and posted above) than by going over the reports I copied for Bagpuss (although that was interesting too, even though all are based on faulty data).   

So again, thanks all!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM

I think Bill phrased it that way because what I saw in the shop window so to speak (the brief report) gave me nothing to interest me further.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

Whenever ANYTHING claims "you have to believe before you can know", it's snake-oil....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

ANd you weren't interested to begin with, really. *yawn*

You already know it all, and it's a lot of hooey. Remember?

And Einstien? Oh well, he was just a hooey tooey. Jung? Phooey phooey! What do I care what they say? Gullible ole simpleminded farts!

Now Bill, and Wolfgang, and Bagpuss, TIA's co-workers, the Skeptics Dictionary --- THESE are the definitely most reliable, informed, enlightened, and accurate sources of wisdom and truth the Cat has to offer on the subject of astrology!   

:-)


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."

- ALBERT EINSTEIN


"Synchronicity does not admit causality in the analogy between terrestrial events and astrological constellations ... What astrology can establish are the analogous events, but not that either series is the cause or the effect of the other. (For instance, the same constellation may at one time signify a catastrophe and at another time, in the same case, a cold in the head.) ... In any case, astrology occupies a unique and special position among the intuitive methods... I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological phase, or an analogous event, was accompanied by a transit (particularly when Saturn and Uranus were affected)."

- CARL G. JUNG

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

yep...that's kinda the way it is...like Bagpuss says.

Gee, Little Hawk....I'm not sure how to respond to your 'suggestion' that I look hard for stuff I know nothing about in order to 'roll about' in unpleasantness......

well, maybe I do after all.....Piffle! ;>)

This here place is a FORUM, where people put out ideas for discussion..(and some silly stuff just to make noise). I assume that both sides of all issues are fair game. You'll notice that I VERY seldom start threads to promote scepticism, just as I don't go knocking on the Jehovah's Witnesses doors in order to show them that Atheism is 'better'. (quaint idea, hmmm?)

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive the Highway of Generalization and Subjectivism. We aren't barricades, we just slow you down a bit and 'maybe' let you look for smoother pavement and possible detours when the ride gets bumpy. You can (and do) 'keep on truckin' if you've a mind to, and you may not even notice that some of those roads are just long, interesting circles! 'S alright....it's a metaphorical freeway, and you can even ignore the warning signs about "falling logic" "soft premises" and "foggy conditions". You can even drive slowly and miss most of us potholes...all we hope is that others on the road who are not sure of the route will see you trying to PATCH those holes, and examine why there ain't an easier way.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM

"Einstein? Jung?"

Again, you show yourself guilty of logical fallacy.... Just because someone is an authority on ONE thing doesn't mean they know jack-shit about something/everything else...

So, Einsteins opinion of astrology doesn't matter a hill of beans... Nor does Jungs.... John Carpenter might make a damn good movie, but does that make him an authority when it comes to baking a cake?? (I donno... maybe Johnny is good at that too... Whenever I've sat down for dinner with him, he's never offered home-made cake for desert... )

The 'fact' is your 'facts' are debunked... But like a post-James-Randi-encounter-dowser, you cling to your belief, despite evidence to the contrary... The dictionary definition of delusion...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.

Those who believe simply have different notions of proof, data, testability and relevance than those who do not....the question is, do 'different' standards have equal status? How can we tell? Who decides? This is not something we just vote on. If I am right, I am right...even if 6 billion disagree. History is full of stories of what happened to some who chose to stubbornly refuse to 'believe' when they were told the 'truth'...Galileo and Giordano Bruno are a couple of examples.

Yep...I am stubborn...but it is based on many years of thinking about it and deciding that certain claims required more than just elaborate schemas.

Whether the title of this thread is trolling or not, it asked.....and I have my answers..*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

I am merely suggesting, Bill, that a person can gain more far wisdom from self-observation than from debating endlessly with others about the things they believe or don't believe. Such debates usually change nothing, except that they harden people in their established positions and cause them to dislike one another.

Now, again....why are you so attracted to threads about things you are sceptical about? Why do you think you would be? No, I was not suggesting that you necessarily know nothing about those things (although that might sometimes be the case). I was suggesting that you are drawn to these debates for specific reasons. (as are we all)

What do you think those reasons might be? I could suggest some, but I'd rather you come up with them yourself.

Or would you rather just continue debating the relative merits of astrology...which will change nothing? Those who believe in it will go on believing, and those who don't won't.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:52 PM

"gain more far wisdom from self-observation"

Omphaloskepsis is a worthless endeavour...

Unless you're looking for lint

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

And "the unexamined life is not worth living"...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

You found life in your belly button??

Take more showers!

:-P

Heh

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM

well, LH...I have posted more than once..several (5-6-7??) different times why I bother to debate and critique....and at least a couple times have been in direct response to you.

1) To force myself to think thru the issue and refine what I really think about it and why. You gotta work a bit to be sure you say what you mean and be relatively clear.

2) Because it would both dull and dangerous to let only one view of some of these issues grace these wide-ranging threads. These are not silly, neutral, irrelevant topics...They are about something, and the way we approach them is in many ways a mirror of how we act, vote, care, buy, support...etc., in the 'real world' where a few hundred votes in Florida can affect the entire way the country and the world are run for years to come. We make whatever waves we can, in the ways best suited to our status. 'Maybe' my exhortations about careful patterns of thought will have ripple effects...if Mudcat lasts as long as Max says it will...*grin*.

3) Because I feel I can be a moderating voice between the believers and claimers who unwaveringly support some of the arcane and abstruse claims that are made, and the loud, insulting, cynical notes of some of the naysayers who tend to ridicule rather than discuss & debate. (Why, some of them even from Canada..*grin*)

4) Because I have this background and a piece of paper that SAYS I am certified to meddle gently in areas where HOW to think and reason are legitimate issues! (Wolfgang is in many ways even more certified than I am, and has **credentials** ! *grin*..I know he can cite counter-examples more explicitly)

5) Because....and this is not meant to be cute or sarcastic....since I do realize that I am NOT likely to change many minds, I'd like to see people who DO continue to believe just as they always have understand what defenses and arguments are good and valid and relevant for their positions! Astrology and 'intelligent design' and religious doctrine and Tarot and Ouija boards and pre-cognition...to name a few...all have their history, backgrounds, studies and anecdotal reports to support various aspects of their claims.....and it is important to present whatever supposed evidence there is in the best way possible, as it may help to convince skeptics like ME someday as more information becomes available.

If I was to start over, I might say all that a little differently, or have 2 more reasons, but that's close.

oh....

6) because it's interesting to learn & compare ideas!!! And that could be the ONLY one if I was pressed about it!

3)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive

Ok, I'll do that, Bill. It'll be fun! ANd talk about synchronicity - as we speak, the two feet of snow that's fallen over the last couple weeks here is quickly melting in the bright afternoon sun. So my son and I spent a good deal of time navigating our way around the biggest, darkest, deepest, iciest, absolutely filthiest potholes of the season yet. (Hee hee!   Sure you ain't a psychic, Bill?)

In fact, some of those potholes are causing small lakes covering half the road, threatening every vehicle and passerby. So our little excursion did take a bit longer, but hey. We were out for the sunshine, fresh air, company and exercise anyway. Hardly noticed 'em in fact, except to make a bit of extra fun!

And next time I encounter those deep dark icy filthy dangerous potholes, I'll be sure to remember you fondly, Bill. And Wolfgang too, and TIA ... and ... look, look! They must be her co-workers!

Hey let's name that one Bagpuss (after the ripped up bag floating in it) ... and *egads* this really reminds me of Clinton's grandfather's dog's asshole ... and .... and ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM

So... more Ad Hominem attacks...

It only speaks to how weak your case is...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

OK , Bill D., one or two 'detours' around the potholes.

There are other conceptions of how the universe is than the one proposed by science as normally practised. Somebody - ah, I've found it.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (F.Scott Fitzgerald).

Also, I don't see astrology so much in terms of prediction, more, like Gestalt Therapy, as uncovering potentialities and the choices of the person (or country, organization etc.) whose horoscope is under consideration.(Even tho' I have two serious-astrology tomes, both published 1981, both suggesting the Soviet Union would break up by the end of the 80s, when Pluto would, for the first time, pass over the place in the zodiac where the Sun was when the Soviet Union came about in 1917. Pluto signifies death and regeneration, the Sun the heart or core.)



Someone reading a 'cold' interpretation is likely, as already demonstrated, not to see varying amounts of the reading as sounding like them. That's in part because none of us has realised much of our true being, whereas the chart is really a 'portrait' of the full potential of the person.

I got interested in astrology because I wanted to get to the bottom of things, because I'm left-field/contrary/Uranian enough (Uranus in 12th conjunct Ascendant), and because I was curious how this other world had been so invisible to me up to then. ('Occult'
means 'hidden').

Bill, I've already put some potholes of my own in earlier posts. Discussion is a two-way sort of thing, of course.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

I like that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote, Ivor....I do suspect we might not see exactly the same wisdom in it, however. ☺

as to "There are other conceptions of how the universe is..." ..indeed there are. What is yet to be determined is whether it can be several of those at once. If not, and it 'is' only one VERY complex, but unchanging way, then we are like the 4 or 5 blind men, all arguing about what an elephant is like after feeling different parts of it.

I, even though partially blind, am willing to share in puzzling out what the elephant 'might' be like from all the other reports, but I'm not willing to base much of a cosmology on any of the individual theories....those 'trunk' worshipers need to come feel this leg!


and that's maybe a wretched excess of metaphor for now.....

I need some sleep before I start musing on "what one should fill potholes with"!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

Reasonable, Bill, reasonable. Perhaps we should have a thread sometime to discuss why people look for things to disagree about. Could be interesting.

Well, maybe later. Haven't got time for it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

questioning of Sheldrake's credibility is a bit of hyperbole (M.Ted)

Well, but Bill was only quoting from your link, M.Ted.

That bit of 'research' only adds to the doubts in Sheldrake's credibility. I do not doubt his counting, I bet he's correct in that. His trick is to compare what should never be compared in any meaningful sense.

Double-blind testing is only necessary under some very specific conditions and unnecessary (or even impossible) else. These conditions occur in many of the experiments in parapasychology and not very often in psychology and (nearly) never in the physical sciences.

He found that, while it is used more that 80% of the time in parapsychological research, he found that it is only ocassionally used in medical and psychological sciences, and nearly never in biological and physical sciences

Such a silly argumentation is an advocate's argument, meant to score an easy point with those lacking knowledge. For the others it is a belly laugh. Double blind means that neither the analyser nor the participants in an experiment know in which test condition the participants are run.

The participants in physics are usually particles. They are not allowed to 'know' in which condition they are run in a double-blind procedure. Any scientist submitting a paper to a physical sciences journal explaining how the particles were blinded to the experimental conditions would get a letter back asking whether she was still sane. A double-blind procedure makes no sense at all here. In biology as well, if you state that the rats (monkeys, flies,...) were blind to the experimental conditions the nicest the editor will do is to erase such a nonsensical sentence without further comment.

A simple-blind procedure sometimes can make sense in the physical sciences when the counting has a subjective component like for instance in a cloud chamber. Most of the time, the measurement has no subjective component worth mentioning (or may even by done by an apparatus). In all these instances even a single blind procedure ("we did not tell our automatic counter in which condition it did the counting. It was only debriefed after the experiment was completely finished") is at the very best superfluous, or worse, an indicator of anincompetent.

The whole Sheldrake argument and counting is very obviously fishy and the only question remaining is whether he knows that and still does it for the effect in discussions (that's what I guess) or whether he himself believes what he writes to be sound.

The only subject area in which he may have a point is in medicine which is haunted by sloppy experimenting even in mainstream medicine research.

Speaking about Einstein, here's another quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I'm not sure about the former.

As for the quote above "astrology is a science..." one astrology site just copies it from the other. Michael Shermer (editor of SKeptic magazine) once has asked for a source of that quote at the Einstein archive and got the following response:
According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

That's about the usual carefulness of astrology.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Bill, if your pothole role ever does get too tired and old for you, you could try fixing with exactly the opposite ingrediants that created it in the first place. "Fill" your ignorance of the subject at hand with real practical first-hand knowledge; your
inexperience with experience; and your preconceptions, prejudices and biases with objectivity, tolerance and truth.

ANd if this doesn't appeal, you could fill your potholes with the most difficult and humbling of all ingredients.

Silence.

It's an excellent way of conserving personal time and energy, and ensuring that personal ignorance and prejudices do not mislead, offend, distract, delay or otherwise harm fellow 'travellers' on the road of life.

But seriously, your potholes aren't big enough to bother me. And if they were, I wouldn't be bothered trying to fix 'em for you. THat's your problem!

Nope, I'd just make me another road! Easy. I like doing that, and I've always preferred the 'road less travelled' anyway.

And wow, it's amazing to me how quickly Einstein and Jung are outsmarted, discredited, put in their proper 'place' by the absolute geniuses who post on this site! WHat a fountain of wisdom and knowledge and truth the Cat must be!!   ;-)

Seriously though, if I wanted information about the best Canadian-made guitars for the buck, I wouldn't ask Einstein. I'd (maybe) ask Clinton! That's because while Albert had no experience with or working knowledge of Canadian guitars, CLinton does.

In the same vein if I wanted to learn about astrology, believe me I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang, or Bagpuss, or TIA's friends. These people know absolutely diddley squat about astrology, by their own admission; therefore, their opinions on the subject are about as valuable and appealing to me as several big buckets of buttered diarrhea.

No, I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully.   Jung too, and the other great scientists and thinkers throughout history who DID undertake a serious and well-documented study of astrology throughout their lives.

But most of all, as LH pointed out --- I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known.   "Believing" just doesn't cut it, and it never has. For me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Sorry Wolfie, that claim about Einstein is most likely false. I'll look up that reference again, and post it here when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Fron James Randi's website :

"Recently, an astrology group has been repeating on the Internet an old canard about Albert Einstein, who they claim wrote:


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."
Former astrologer Geoffrey Dean, writing to Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, said:


"Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote. In a letter in 'Correlation' June 1991... I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, 'Manuel d'astrologie,' where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.... Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest that Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings."
Dean ended by suggesting that the purported quotation should be disregarded until authenticated. Dr. Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, chimed in with:


According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus. In fact, it is in her edited volume THE EXPANDED QUOTABLE EINSTEIN ... under "Attributed to Einstein," along with hundreds of others just like it, such as "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" and "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory." ... Under astrology, Einstein did say: "The reader should note [Kepler's] remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead."
To amplify the naive opinion of Einstein, expressing his conviction that astrology was not to be taken seriously and was now devalued, I will quote from an 1896 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (just donated to the JREF by James Harter) on the subject:


Astrology, the so-called science by which various nations, in various ways, have attempted to assign to the material heavens a moral influence over the earth and its inhabitants.... Even at the present day a few may be found who, from a superstitious reverence for the past, or the spirit of contradiction, pride themselves on their adherence to the belief of stellar influences. It is no longer necessary to protest against an error which is dead and buried ...
Au contraire. Every celebration or assumption of the demise of any specific form of superstition or pseudoscience, whether framed by an Einstein or the editors of an encyclopedia, is followed by a groan of dismay when that notion proves itself a Hydra....

I quote these observations of Dean, Kelly, Calaprice, and Shermer here so that the reader may recognize that when properly looked into, such mysteries readily yield to research and reason."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Daylia,

if you really find a source in Einstein's writings for that quote, you should not only post it here but publish a correction in the journal Correlation to the letter from Geoffrey Dean published in June 1991, 11(1):35-36. Dean had then tried to trace that quote back to where it started and it invariably appears attributed to Einstein but with no exact reference. Dean's candidate for the first appearance of that quote in print is Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, publ. in the early 1950s, where this quote appears in the introduction without any reference. Happy hunting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

It looks as if the jury remains out on whether Einstein ever endorsed astrology if I may quote from Robert Todd Carroll's "Skeptic's Dictionary:
April 18, 2000. I received an e-mail today from Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, regarding a widespread claim among astrologers that Albert Einstein once wrote: "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it."

Ivan contacted Geoffrey Dean, another renowned expert and critic of astrology, who wrote the following:

Dear Ivan,   Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote.

In a letter in Correlation June 1991, 11(1):35-36, I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.

The Hirsig book ends with a postscript dated February 1950, so the quotation must date from before that time (Einstein died in 1955). Hirsig's widow did not inherit his papers, so she was unable to check them to see if they gave the source. Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings.

My letter ended "Accordingly, until the quote is authenticated, it should be ignored lest it add to the blight generated by Newton-Halley, Evangeline Adams, and other famous-but-wrong quotes."

Hope this helps.

Regards, Geoffrey
Oddly, Google doesn't seem to be able to come up with any reference to the quote that isn't on an astrology site or debating its authenticity. Which is odd, given that almost every pronouncement of the old goat is recorded copiously all over the web.
Stephen Hawking has his own views on astrology. Shall we put him down as a "maybe" then?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

*daylia*....I'm not sure if you read carefully either my post of March 5- 1:35PM or Wolfgang's directly above. I make the point that 'expertise' within astrology is not what the dispute is about. The world's most famous and widely recognized 'authorities' on Ether Waves.... or on Atlantis ....or on the nature & habits of Elves... must still be asked what ***PROOF*** they have that their subject matter actually exists! Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis, I don't have to be an expert to ask IF the information about it is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolfgang notes an additional problem with the Einstein quote: namely, he doesn't seem to have said that!!!!

According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

(things like this are why the Snopes.com website is so useful...it investigates whether widely held factual beliefs are actually true)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastly: *sigh*....

"I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known."

...not exactly. One's own experiences are certainly important, and cannot be ignored, but you only have to interview 6 'witnesses' to an auto accident, or ask your spouse what happened on your first date to be reminded that certain aspects of our memories and our knowledge of how we got those memories is regularly flawed and inconsistent.
There are, unfortunately, many ways in which presumed 'experience' can be faked, mistaken, mis-remembered, distorted...etc.

Drugs, dreams, fear, peer-pressure, pain, (and pleasure)etc...can all convince us that we saw, heard, felt and remembered stuff that is not quite accurate. This is why rules for testing, comparing, verifying and repeating experiences are developed! People who 'saw' a ghost have no reason to doubt that they 'had an experience', but they DO have reason to wonder what the precise cause of the experience was.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:10 PM

Daylia, if you looked at a large group of babies born within minutes of eachother, would astrology predict/expect them to be more alike in personality than a group of randomly chosen people?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

"I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully"
Except those aren't his words....   Ponder THAT carefully....

"I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang"
So you only want to ask people who agree with you!?!? Go right ahead... You can get together in one big circle-jerk of self-delusion...


" Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis"
We're never going to either, because it NEVER existed... Plato was writing FICTION when he invented it...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM

Well I'm no expert, but I do know that astrology doesn't predict a thing. Astrology is a description, not a prediction. That's been explained several times already on this thread. So the answer's no, Bagpuss. Sure, those babies would have similar charts, but even 10 minutes difference in birthtime or a 20-mile difference in location makes for significant changes as we've seen. And as Ivor explained above, those charts display tendencies, or potentials, which may or may not ever be realized by the individual.